There's also a big difference between noticing inconsistencies in papers and publicly posting allegations about what you suspect is fraud. Dr. Bik has been sued for defamation before – something she actually had to crowd-found money to pay an attorney for. No one sues the journalist who reports what someone else said in public; it's their source, the one making public, substantive, factual claims, who really sticks their neck out.

Don't you understand it's the IDEA that matters?

In this case the execution and follow-through matters more.

I could be the one to identify that my metropolitan city has a massive homelessness problem. But it's another, much more impressive, achievement to be the one who does the hard work of pursuing and resolving that problem.

You are correct but I think the comment was tongue in cheek.

Could be. Chalk it up to Poe’s Law, then.

I don't want to take away from Theo Baker's work here. The articles are well written and well researched. But ultimately they are simply reporting on other people's actions and formal investigations. I don't see any evidence that these articles were a driving force in this set of events.

Well, technically, nearly all news reporting is "reporting on other people's actions" — e.g. Seymour Hersh didn't witness My Lai nor did he even find out about it on his own: Lt. Calley Jr. had already been investigated by the military and charged with mass murder of civilians; Hersh got interested after an anti-war lawyer tipped him off [0].

> I don't see any evidence that these articles were a driving force in this set of events.

One day after Baker published his investigation in the Daily [1], Stanford announced an investigation into MTL's research. You think that's a coincidence, or that the university was pressured to act that quickly b/c of the Daily simply reporting that The EMBO Journal was looking into allegations about a 2008 paper that MTL was third author on? No need to speculate; the university explicitly credits the Daily's story [2]:

> According to spokesperson Dee Mostofi, the University will “assess the allegations presented in the Stanford Daily, consistent with its normal rigorous approach by which allegations of research misconduct are reviewed and investigated.”

It is true that Baker's first story led with the news that "A prominent research journal [EMBO] has confirmed to The Daily that it is reviewing a paper co-authored by [MTL]". But that's not the meat of the story, and most definitely not a catalyst for the university to announce an investigation. EMBO itself told the Daily that the review was still too early to comment:

> When asked about the specific allegations and the timeframe of the investigation, Batista wrote, “We currently cannot comment more substantively before we have a better assessment of the full situation.”

> It is unclear how long the review will take, and allegations can go without a response from the journal or authors for years. But an investigation could carry serious consequences for Tessier-Lavigne even if he is absolved of the alleged manipulation or other direct wrongdoing.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/30/the-scene-of-t...

[1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/29/stanford-presidents-res...

[2] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/30/stanford-opens-investig...